Noah,
I agree with your split of 1.
You once proposed a text on 1a by adding that external
references, otherwise untyped, have no type. I suggested that
instead of this we just remove the rule which says every value
has a type. Which would you prefer, if the WG decides to go 1a?
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>
> Jacek Kopecky writes:
>
> >> IMO this shows that in SOAP Encoding we don't
> >> really want either
> >> 1) the strong requirement that every value
> >> is XSD typed, or
> >> 2) to use XSD simple types, or
> >> 3) to allow external references.
> >> Pick one. I favor 3 over 1 over 2. 8-)
>
> The wording of 1 is potentially ambiguous. It might be taken to mean that
> we want a design where:
>
> 1a) It's OK to have values that are untyped
> - or -
> 1B) All values must be typed, but some of those types need not be XSD types
> (e.g. some might be MIME types or some such)
>
> My own leanings would be either toward 1a (base typing on XSD, but allow
> untyped nodes), with a second choice of 3 (external hrefs are not
> considered part of the encoded graph at all.)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>